|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1563 Records
-
2024 (8) TMI 1483
Rejection of petitioner's miscellaneous application - only ground on which the order-in-appeal dismissing the petitioner's appeal was passed is that petitioner has not filed the Board Resolution authorising the Director who verified the appeal - HELD THAT:- The order-in-appeal dated 18th July 2024 set aside and matter remanded for de novo consideration.
Appellate Authority who will hear this appeal shall give personal hearing to Appellant, notice whereof shall be communicated at least 5 working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of Appellant. If the Appellate Authority is going to rely on any order or judgment of any Court or Tribunal or any other forum, a list thereof shall be made available along with the notice for personal hearing. If the order or a judgment is unreported then a copy thereof shall also be made available along with the notice. This is to enable Appellant to deal with/distinguish the judgment or the order.
The appeal shall be disposed by 30th November 2024.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1482
Rejection of petitioner's miscellaneous application - only ground on which the order-in-appeal dismissing the petitioner's appeal was passed is that petitioner has not filed the Board Resolution authorising the Director who verified the appeal - HELD THAT:- The order-in-appeal dated 22nd March 2024 set aside and matter remanded for de novo consideration.
Appellate Authority who will hear this appeal shall give personal hearing to Appellant, notice whereof shall be communicated at least 5 working days in advance. The order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of Appellant. If the Appellate Authority is going to rely on any order or judgment of any Court or Tribunal or any other forum, a list thereof shall be made available along with the notice for personal hearing. If the order or a judgment is unreported then a copy thereof shall also be made available along with the notice. This is to enable Appellant to deal with/distinguish the judgment or the order.
The appeal shall be disposed by 30th November 2024.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1481
Delay in filing the appeal against Revision u/s 263 - non- deduction of TDS in respect of the transport charges paid which are more than Rs. 30,000/- - HELD THAT:- This appeal has been filed as early as in 9.8.2019. This appeal had been posted for hearing more than 21 times and the appeal had also been disposed of ex-parte on 12.10.2022. Vide an order in miscellaneous application the appeal had been recalled and the appeal was posted for hearing today.
Ld' counsel has also signed the order sheet as having been informed the date of hearing, which date was also chosen by the counsel. Now, again the adjournment is sought, which is nothing but a challenge to the functioning of the Bench. There is absolutely no intention shown by the assessee for having the appeal disposed off.
From 2019 till date the assessee having been unable to get the details to represent its case, now seeking additional 20 days to get details from the accountant nothing but delay tactics. It is surprising as to how the details which have not been collected in the last 5 years is now being claimed to be collected in 20 days. This is an order u/s 263 and the consequential order giving effect has also been passed.
Admittedly the issue in the appeal on merits is in regard to non- deduction of TDS in respect of the transport charges paid which are more than Rs. 30,000/- . No evidence has been produced before us by the assessee nor has the assessee produced such evidence before the learned principle CIT. Further, the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 24 days for which affidavit of the assessee has been filed, wherein no reason has been given.
As no reason has also been provided for the delay in filing of the appeal, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed both on the ground of delay and on account of nonproduction of evidences in support of its claim. Appeal of assessee dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1480
Seeking effectively a stop work notice on the show cause notice - According to petitioner, the adjudication proceedings have become stale due to efflux of time - An earlier order had been passed disposing the show cause notice against which petitioner had filed an appeal before the CESTAT. It was petitioner’s case that the order-in-original is passed without following principles of natural justice.
HELD THAT:- CESTAT had set aside the order-in-original and remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority with a direction to dispose the matter within six months from the date of receipt of reply to the show cause notice after granting a personal hearing. Petitioner states that respondents not only failed to adhere to the time line given by the CESTAT but out of blue had issued a notice dated 27th May 2024 calling upon petitioner to attend personal hearing on 19th June 2024 at 15.30 hrs. Counsel states that the delay in adjudicating proceedings is causing prejudice to petitioner as none of the documents are traceable.
Counsel states now the next date of personal hearing is on 26th August 2024. Respondents will be filing an affidavit in reply to oppose the petition and orally he also submits that petitioner did not even file reply to the show cause notice as directed in the order of the CESTAT.
Matter requires consideration and therefore, we pass following directions :-
(i) Affidavit in reply to be filed and copy served upon petitioner on or before 6th September 2024.
(ii) Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served by 20th September 2024.
(iii) Petition be listed on 30th September 2024.
(iv) Until 31st October 2024, adjudication proceedings shall not be proceeded with.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1479
Infringement of copyright - Interpretation and application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act - Jurisdiction of the State Government to issue Circular dated 30.01.2024 - HELD THAT:- A careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act indicates that for infringement of the copyright or for violation of the rights under the Copyright Act, there are remedies provided apart from the safeguards prescribed for the protection of the rights of the copyright owners. The Act provides for civil remedies and makes the violations offence punishable under the Act. The consequences of breach are provided. The object of the Act is to protect the author of the copyright work from an unlawful reproduction or exploitation of his work by others. The whole essence of a copyright is a right to stop others from exploiting the work without the consent or assent of the owner of the copyright - the copyright law presents a balance between the interests and rights of the author and that of the public in protecting the public domain, or to claim the copyright and protect it under the copyright statute. It is important to bear in mind that the issue of copyright is closely connected to that of commercial viability, commercial consequences and implications.
The impugned Circular dated 30.01.2024 relies upon a public notice dated 24.07.2023 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The public notice dated 24.07.2023 after referring to Section 52(1)(za) directs the Copyright Society to refrain from entering into acts which are in contravention to Section 52(1)(za) in order to avoid any legal action. Also, the general public is thereby cautioned not to accede to any uncalled demands from any individual/organization/copyright society which are in violation of Section 52(1)(za) of Copyright Act 1957.
The impugned Circular after referring to the Public Notice of Government of India dated 24.07.2023 says that insisting upon such permission/NOCs from the copyright societies is in violation of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act adversely affecting not only the citizens but also the economic/tourism activities in the State. It goes to clarify that no hotel or any copyright society shall insist upon any permission/NOCs for performance of musical works or other musical recordings for religious ceremonies/festivals including wedding/marriage events and other social festivities associated with marriage - The circular in expanding the scope of Section 52(1)(za) is bound to have consequences disturbing the balance which the Copyright Act seeks to achieve between the interest of the rights of the author/owner of the copyright and those claiming protection of Section 52(1)(za). As to what shall not constitute infringement of copyright is provided by Section 52(1)(za).
It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Circular to the extent the same is in consonance with the provisions of Section 52(1)(za) be saved. The Circular will have to be read as a whole considering the overall tenor. The Circular warrants interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
There are no hesitation in holding that the impugned Circular is in the teeth of the provisions of the Copyright Act and therefore, the petitions must succeed. The impugned Circular dated 30.01.2024 issued by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1478
Denial of Credit of TDS - assessee is acted only as an agent (kaccha arahtia) -assessee deducted tax at source U/s. 194Q and 194A of the Act from the commission income - as argued appellant is only a commission agent and therefore the CPC is not justified in applying Rule 37BA by treating the gross sale proceeds as the income of the appellant.
HELD THAT:- Considering the identical facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case with that of the appeal decided by the Tribunal in the case of Yagneswari General Traders [2024 (3) TMI 1344 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] following the principle of consistency, no hesitation to set-aside the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and direct the Ld. AO to grant credit of the entire amount deducted as tax at source in the case of the assessee.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1477
TDS u/s 195 - disallowance of software maintenance charges - non deduction of TDS - disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for the assessment year 2012-13 [2020 (1) TMI 1641 - ITAT PUNE] decided appeal in favour of the assessee held that held payment for use of software made by the assessee to CMA CGM, France does not satisfy the requirement of ‘use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software’. Once it is held that para 3 of Article 12 is not attracted, as a sequitur, the application of clause (a) of para 4 of Article 12 of the DTAA with Portuguese would automatically be ousted, thereby making the amount paid by the assessee to CMA CGM, France for use of LARA, DIVA and Ocean software as immune from taxation in India. Going by the beneficial provision in the DTAA vis-à-vis the Act, it is held that there was no requirement on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source which should have called for any disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of leased line/data link charges - This issue is no more res integra as the same is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 1026 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the charges paid towards leased line are not in the nature of Technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.The service provided by the Stock Exchange for which transaction charges are paid fails to satisfy the aforesaid test of specialized, exclusive and individual requirement of the user or consumer who may approach the service provider for such assistance/service. It is only service of the above kind that, according to us, should come within the ambit of the expression “technical services” appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1476
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - appellant had not filed Form-10B - appellant is a registered Trust u/s 12A of the Act and the claim of exemption of income was denied u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT:- In Hari Gyan Pracharak Trust [2023 (6) TMI 923 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has held that since filing of Form-10B is merely a procedural requirement, any defect in that is curable.
It is seen that the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Oneness Educational and Charitable Trust [2024 (4) TMI 500 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] has held that the oversight in not filing Form-10B within the due date was to be condoned and the exemption was to be allowed and granted.
Also, the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Global Organisation for Development [2024 (5) TMI 1171 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] has held that the delay on the part of the assessee in submitting Form-10B was to be condoned and the matter remanded back to the file of the AO for passing appropriate order on merits.
Also in Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society [2024 (4) TMI 939 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that where the assessee Trust belatedly submitted Form-10B, along with return, on account of oversight by the Chartered Accountant, the delay in filing of Form-10B deserves to be condoned.
Thus delay in filing of Form-10B is hereby condoned and it is directed that the appellant be allowed exemption as would be due to him as per law. The ld. AO is directed accordingly. Appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1475
Seeking to quash the assessment of two Bills of Entry for imported fabric after accepting the enhanced value - HELD THAT:- It has not been denied in the appeal memo that letters accepting the enhanced value were submitted by the appellant. It is, therefore, not open to the appellant, after having accepted the enhanced value and after having cleared the goods after payment of differential customs value, to challenge the enhancement. This is what was observed by the Tribunal in Hanuman Prasad & Sons [2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and subsequently in M/s Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd [2024 (9) TMI 170 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
-
2024 (8) TMI 1474
Requirement for a detailed speaking order for enhancement of the value - Assessment of aluminium scrap [the goods] imported - enhancement of the value agreed by paying duty - respondent filed an appeal seeking speaking order giving grounds for enhancement of the value - HELD THAT:- This Bench, by a detail order in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.) [2024 (9) TMI 170 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has laid down the principles which would govern matters when the importers give their consent in writing to the enhanced value. The Bench also examined at length the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading [2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT]
Thus, while passing the fresh order, the Assessing Officer shall take into consideration the principles laid down by this bench in Century Metal Recycling.
The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh speaking order in the light of the decision of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. preferably within a period of three months from the date the order is filed before him.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1473
Money Laundering - refusal to release certain properties that according to the petitioners were acquired by her father-in-law before the occurrence of the crime, initiation of the proceedings in respect of the predicate offence and the subsequent proceedings under PMLA Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled in law that the exception to the principle of alternative remedy for approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are inter alia, the jurisdictional error, violation of the statutory provision and the statutory remedy being not truly efficacious or alternative. The principles are now far too well settled.
It is however equally well settled that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary. The Single Bench appears to be of the view that the petitioner has an opportunity to explain to the adjudicating authority as to why the property in question should not be attached. He may do so. From that point of view, the order of Single Bench, cannot be deemed as illegal or contrary to law.
The impugned order therefore, does not call for interference - Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1472
Mainatianbility of appeal - the petitioner has already paid the pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, since the order passed itself was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner herein, the period as prescribed under Section 35(1) of the Act has to be read from the date of knowledge and nor from the date of passing of the order alone.
The appellant authority is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits without going into the question of delay/ limitation - petition allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1471
Deduction u/s 80P(2) - assessee has nominal members and assessee has accepted deposits from nominal members - Assessee has given interest on the deposits to nominal members - HELD THAT:- As relying on Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] Assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society, registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The assessee has provided credit facilities to its members. Assessee has claimed profit earned from providing credit facility to its members, exempt u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Thus, all the conditions are fulfilled by assessee. Therefore, we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i).
Interest income earned from fixed deposits kept with various co-operative banks - Hon’ble High Court of AP &TS [2017 (4) TMI 663 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held that Interest Income earned by investing Income derived from Business and Profession by a Co-Operative Society was eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) - Revenue has not brought to our notice any contrary decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf [1977 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that in the absence of any contrary decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, decision of Non-Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribunal.
Therefore, we hold that assessee is eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1470
Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - applicability of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - HELD THAT:- The assessment that the applicant requires regular physiotherapy cannot be questioned. However, the prayer for bail on the count that the applicant requires assistance for his daily routine activities cannot be considered, discounting the extensive period for which the applicant has been provided treatment, as an indoor patient, at the Lilavati Hospital and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals. In the light of the condition of health of the applicant on other parameters, namely, cardiac, nephrology and ophthalmology, the applicant seems to be relatively stable. What the applicant now requires is diabetes management and physiotherapy.
Thus, the assessment that the applicant requires assistance for his daily activities cannot be appreciated in isolation. An appropriate direction to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Mumbai, to provide the requisite assistance, whenever necessary, would meet the exigency of the situation. The concern expressed on behalf of the applicant that on account of logistical issues it may not be practicable to take the applicant to Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals for treatment regularly can also be addressed by issuing appropriate directions.
The requirement of assistance either in the form of physical aids like wheelchair or walker, or human support, cannot be construed to be such an infirmity as to warrant the release on bail by invoking the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. To put in another words, there is not much qualitative difference in the condition of health of the applicant today and as it obtained when the first application was rejected. On the contrary, an inference may be justifiable that the health condition of the applicant has improved with treatment as an indoor patient for almost four months.
It is not required to release the applicant on bail on medical ground. However, it is deemed appropriate to issue certain directions to ensure proper assistance and treatment to the applicant - bail application dismissed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1469
Demand of differential duty - Anti-Dumping duty rates for different manufacturers and exporters - Scope of Notification No. 32/2019-Cus. (ADD) - Anti-Dumping duty at variable rates on different class of manufacturer, with those producers which are at Serial No 1 entitled to lower Anti Dumping Duty, while others being subjected to higher rate of duty
Department is of the view that the exporter claimed that is M/s. Xingzian Zhongtai Chemical Company Ltd. (hereinafter called “Chemical Company”) is the manufacturer and therefore, required to be subjected to the higher rate of Anti Dumping Duty as per the same notification i.e. Notification No. 32/2019-Cus. (ADD) - appellant have contested this claim on the basis that “Chemical Company” was merely the exporter on record and even numbers of documents exist indicating that they were not manufacturer and therefore, the lower rate of Anti Duping Duty was correctly sought - HELD THAT:- We find that the commercial invoice issued for the consignment clearly mentions manufacturer name as that of Alkali Company. Even packing list has the name of Alkali Co. Ltd as the manufacturer.
We also find that the certificate of origin issued by China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, which in competent agency, also indicates the name of the Alkali Company as the manufacturer of the impugned goods and origin of the goods being that of China.
Transporting companies i.e. transport shipping (China Corporation Ltd.) also mentions Alkali Company as the manufacturer. Same is the case with transit insurance issued in this regard.
As in view of overwhelming documentary evidence which is otherwise available, Department has not been able to establish that the “Chemical Company” was the manufacturer. Department cannot on the basis of Company’s name appearing on the sacks, consider that all other documents are falsified, even when investigation has not brought on record anything to this effect. There is no testimonial incriminating evidence on record to indicate that there was breach of law committed by the “Chemical Company” while importing such goods to India. The clearance was got done by waiving show cause notice but by paying duty under protest for the sake of early clearance. Therefore, all the documentary evidence produced by the appellant remains uncontroverted and cannot be ousted by mere mention of name on sacks, which do not even indicate that “Chemical Company’ was manufacturer.
Commissioner (Appeals) in his findings has done away with confiscation of goods and imposing of fine under Section 125, and penalty under Section 112 (of the Customs Act, 1962), on the cogent basis that the Bill of Entry was filed on the basis of documents received. Therefore, on the basis of available documents, the goods have been held, to be non-offending goods.
Despite the same document, differential duty has been demanded, which is incorrect approach in law, as the credence to the documentary evidence cannot be ignored for duty only, when found worthy of consideration for holding goods as non-offending.
Thus, since documentary evidence in any case gets precedence over assumption/suspicion emanating from the packing specially till it is controverted, we are inclined to accept the above documentary evidence including certificate of origin as adequate evidence to accept that “Alkali Company” were the producers in the present instance and in the fact of the matter brought on record. Decided against revenue.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1468
Refund of the Service Tax paid on ‘Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service’ and legal service on which Service Tax was belatedly paid under reverse charge mechanism, in terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11(B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - rejection of refund on the ground that the payment of Service Tax was made after 01.07.2017 during GST regime for the period prior to 01.07.2017 - Whether Section 142(8)(a) puts any bar for granting the refund of Cenvat credit in terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017?
HELD THAT:- From the plain reading of the Section 142(3), it is observed that the said Section deals with the eventualities when the assesse is not in a position to avail the Cenvat credit. Therefore, the amount of Cenvat credit is refunded in cash, under the said provision. The Section 142(3) also deals with the amount which is accrued prior to GST regime. Accordingly, the situation arose in the present case is exactly the same for which provision of Section 142(3) was enacted. The amount of service tax was pertaining to the period prior to 01.07.2017 which is payable under the existing law. Subsequently, the said amount became admissible as a Cenvat credit under existing law and since the same cannot be availed as Cenvat credit after 01.07.2017, the only option is to refund the same in terms of Section 142(3).
Section 142(8)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 provides that any amount of tax which was recoverable under the existing law before 01.07.2017 and the same is recovered, the amount recovered shall not be admissible as input tax credit under this Act. There is no ambiguity in the provision that any amount of tax paid under the existing law as was done in the present case no input tax credit is admissible - Both the lower authorities have gravely erred in interpreting the input tax credit as if the same is Cenvat credit. Therefore, the finding of both the lower authorities dealing with the Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, for rejecting the present refund claim is absurd and absolutely illegal. Therefore, on this ground also refund could not have been rejected.
As regard the contention of the lower authorities that since the amount of service tax was paid on pursuance by the audit party, the refund is inadmissible. In this regard, it is found that neither any show cause notice for recovery of the service tax invoking any extended period was issued nor adjudication of such proceeding was done. Therefore, in not paying the service tax, no mala fide intention or suppression of fact is involved. Therefore, merely because the appellant have paid the service tax on pursuance by the audit will not be a reason for denying the refund under Section 142 - except the grounds for rejection no other issues have been dealt by the sanctioning authority such as admissibility of the input service for Cenvat credit, unjust enrichment and relevant documents verification. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose.
The impugned order is set aside - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1467
Seeking writ of mandamus/ appropriate directions to Respondent No. 1 - Union of India1 to furnish a status report on the complaints/ representations filed by the Petitioner - invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - HELD THAT:- Regardless, for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner must demonstrate that they have an enforceable constitutional right against the Respondents. The Court is unable to ascertain any such right from the facts presented.
The matter be listed before the Roster Bench dealing with public interest litigation. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comments on the merits of the case or whether there is any element of public interest involved in the present proceedings.
Subject to orders of Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, list this matter before the Roster Bench on 26th September, 2024.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1466
Preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the writ action not considered - after some preliminary observations, Single Judge has merely issued notice in the writ petition. No interim order has been passed.
HELD THAT:- The moment, the appeal is premature. Single Judge has not ruled one way or the other, i.e., either on the preliminary objections concerning maintainability of the writ action or on the merits of the matter.
It is our sense that the observations are exploratory at this stage and do not advert to the final decision on the issues concerning preliminary objections or qua the merits.
The appeal is, accordingly, closed. The parties will have their complete say before the learned Single Judge. As expected that RBI will submit its report uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned judgment and order.
As far as this Court is concerned, clearly, we have not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1465
CENVAT Credit on goods received from other manufacturers - denial of credit on the ground that for the goods received from other manufacturers since the goods are already the finished goods of the appellant - value addition on goods - HELD THAT:- While discharging this Excise Duty, they have utilized the CENVAT Credit of 1,63,96,895/- and paid the balance amount of Rs. 7,58,271/- by cash. This shows that there has been some value addition and they have paid higher duty on the finished goods than whatever CENVAT Credit they have taken on the goods received from their vendors.
The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bunty Foods India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Thane [2017 (10) TMI 204 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held 'In the facts of the present case, the appellants have brought the duty paid goods from various vendors and the same were repacked as per the requirements of export and goods were exported, even though the activity was not amount to manufacture, they have discharged excise duty. Therefore, in our view, the appellants have complied with the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2).'
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant has reversed the entire CENVAT Credit and also paid further Rs. 7,58,271/- under PLA account while clearing the goods which they had bought from other vendors. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Foods is squarely applicable. A careful reading of Rule 16 of CER 2002 clarifies that any goods on which duty has been paid at the time of removal can be taken as CENVAT Credit. It does not specify that the finished goods of any other third party cannot be used as input by the assessee for availing the concession of Rule 16(1), 16(2). It is clearly stated that the amount of Excise Duty paid while clearing such goods received under Rule 16(1) should be either equivalent or more than the CENVAT Credit taken. This condition has been fulfilled in the present case.
In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
2024 (8) TMI 1464
Rejection of regular/final 80G approval/registration as barred by limitation - Need to file regular 80G registration within a period of six months therefrom provisional registration granted - HELD THAT:- Appellant assessee was granted a provisional registration u/c (iv) of s/s (5) of section 80G by an order u/c (vi) of s/s (5) of section 80G of the Act by the CIT(E). Therefore, there remains no reason to draw out appellant’s case from claiming benefit of extended period for filing application for regular registration.
The circular 08/2022 also clarified that the extended period upto 30/09/2023 shall apply even in cases, (i) where the application was rejected by the CIT(E) on or before issuance of this circular dt 24/05/2023 (ii) where due date for making/filing application has expired, on or before 30/09/2023.
In addition to above, in reply to a specific query, the appellant spelt out the reasons beyond delayed filing of application, which in our considered view also formed sufficient & reasonable ground to condone the delay.
We find in similar facts & circumstance, the co-ordinate benches allowed benefit of extended time period in Rotary Club of Akurdi Charitable Trust [2024 (10) TMI 1246 - ITAT PUNE], Shashvat Paediatric Care Foundation [2024 (3) TMI 1365 - ITAT PUNE], ‘Birmani Charitable Foundation’ [2024 (4) TMI 89 - ITAT PUNE] Swachh Vapi Mission Trust [2024 (3) TMI 614 - ITAT SURAT], TB Lulla Charitable Foundation [2024 (6) TMI 798 - ITAT PUNE] and Gujarat Hira Bourse & Ors [2024 (1) TMI 946 - ITAT SURAT] and Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga Charitable Trust [2023 (11) TMI 1210 - ITAT JODHPUR]
Maintaining parity with former decisions, we hold the application of the appellant was filed well within the extended time limit and in consequence we set-aside the impugned order of rejection for remand with a direction to treat appellant’s application dt. 30/09/2023 as filed within the time limit prescribed u/c (iii) to first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act r.w.c. 06/2023 and adjudicate the same on merits in accordance with law.
........
|
9911796707
